[tied] Re: "Will the 'real' linguist please stand up?"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:07:05 -0000, "tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...>" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >> It's not uncommon. The Dutch for "nothing" is <niets> [nits]
> >> (accidentally very close to the Polish for "nothing", <nic>
> >[n^its]),
> >> but is commonly pronounced as [nIks].
> >
> >Weet ik wel. But in German "nothing" is "nichts", also commonly

(Low

> >German and Low_German) [nIks], and Dutch has borrowed before from
> >that language (überhaupt, zich (cf. mij)).
>
> Even if "niks" is borrowed from German, synchronically there is an
> equivalence ks/ts.
>

German has no equivalent to 'iets'. And there is no 'Iks' in Dutch.

And if one should follow your metaphor to the full, you should let
both seven's be borrowed from a hypothetical *sekt- or *sext- (cf.
Standard High German "nichts"; note in German -xs- > -ks-, as in,
yes 'sechs' [zeks]). Note the -t- in "p'at'", BTW, from the ordinal;
is there a similar extra-IE adjective-forming -t- somewhere?

> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Torsten